Jeanette Hofmann jeanette at wzb.eu
Mon Apr 28 11:31:21 UTC 2014

Dear Janis,

to be honest, I was hoping for a more encouraging response. In addition 
to an enormous amount of secretarial capacity and committment, I thought 
there was a lot of good will to explore new precedures and to produce a 
new type of collective outcome. Moreover, many participants assessed the 
dynamics of netmundial against the background of the IGF asking 
themselves how specific elements of netmundial could be imported into 
the IGF in order to revive and improve the latter.

You are of course right that the overall context, aims and purposes of 
both meetings differ. It is also true that the netmundial process was 
far from being perfect. Still, in my view we should now ask ourselves 
what can be learned from netmundial with a view to improving the IGF and 
which of such improvements could already be implemented this year.

The call for IGF outcomes is everything but new. Several years ago 
towards the end of its first term, the MAG discussed a new meeting 
format for specific topics that had been on the agenda for various years 
and had cleary exhausted the potential insights to be gained from 
additional IGF workshops. Child pornography was mentioned as an example. 
  The idea as I recall it was, to assemble the various experts, 
stakeholders and views on the issue and get them to agree on a limited 
number of factual problem statements and, if possible, recommendations. 
We were not able to explore this approach because one stakeholder group 
obviously got cold feet and lobbied against it. Now might be the time to 
give this a second try.

Yes, such an approach would need preparation. A draft statement should 
be prepared by the relevant actors in advance of the meeting so that 
everybody knows what is at stake and has a chance to form an opinion on 
the issue at stake. It seems still early enough to set in motion such an 
experiment for one specific topic.

In my view, the IGF needs to prove that it can reform itself. More 
funding will come along if it does so.


Am 27.04.14 08:04, schrieb karklinsj at gmail.com:
> Avri,
> I would like to comment on your “…it is time to IGF MAG to through off
> its self imposed limitations ….”
> Agreeing that IGF needs to find a way to demonstrate more tangible
> outcome of its work, I doubt that NetMundial experience will be applied
> in 2014/2015 editions. There are several reasons for that:
>   *
>     NetMundial was focused on 2 issues - IGF is broad ranging discussion
>   *
>     Purpose/aim of both meetings were different
>   *
>     Drafting of the Final statement started well in advance of NetMundial
>   *
>     NetMundial had far more resources in terms of Secretarial support
>     (HL Committee, Bureau)
> That said, I hope that IGF will be able to demonstrate that things
> happen as a result of IGF elsewhere. You know that I launched a call for
> a voluntary information submission:
> /The Internet Governance Forum was created by the World Summit on the
> Information Society as a multistakeholder discussion platform on
> Internet governance related issues. The goals of the IGF are to provide
> a platform for information exchange, identify emerging challenges and
> possible solutions to addressing them, provide capacity building,
> identify and disseminate best practices and forge partnerships for
> concrete actions./
> /Over the past few years, some sceptics of the IGF have suggested that
> no actions have been taken and that no decisions are made at the IGF -
> that it is just a “talk shop”./
> /In order to dissipate those doubts about the “action orientation” of
> the IGF it would be useful to collect data about concrete actions and
> decisions that have been taken by different stakeholders as a result of
> the engagement and discussions of Internet related issues at the various
> IGFs (international, regional or national)./
> /In this respect, I would like to invite all of those organizations and
> institutions that would be willing to share information, *on a voluntary
> basis*, about concrete decisions or actions that have been taken as a
> result of engagement during the current mandate of the IGF the 2011,
> 2012 and 2013 IGFs to do so by sending brief information to the IGF
> Secretariat (/_/[email protected]//intgovforum.org/_
> <mailto:discussion_questions at intgovforum.org>/) by 30 June 2014. The
> Secretariat will compile all information received and will present a
> synthesized report at the Istanbul IGF./
> /Thank you for your participation/
> /Janis Karklins/
> /Interim Chair of the MAG/
> The IGF Secretariat will compile all submissions and I intend present
> them at the opening of Istanbul IGF meeting. I hope that report will
> dissipate, at least partially, perception that IGF is merely a talk-shop.
> With greetings from sunny and warm Riga
> JK
> Sent from Surface
> *From:* Avri Doria <mailto:avri at acm.org>
> *Sent:* ‎Saturday‎, ‎April‎ ‎26‎, ‎2014 ‎10‎:‎59‎ ‎PM
> *To:* discuss at 1net.org <mailto:discuss at 1net.org>,
> internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org>
> Hi,
> And beyond exegesis and spin on the document we should try to import
> some of those techniques into the IGF so that it can also learn how to
> produce some outcomes, e.g. inputs from IGF to other Ig organizations.
> Following the lead of NetMundial, it is time for the IGF MAG to throw
> off its self imposed limitation of being merely a program committee so
> it can make recommendations to the UNSG on how to turn the IGF into an
> organization that can actually produce results.  While it is true that
> the IGF has achieved a little just by existing, at this point if it
> wants to remain viable it needs to move beyond its infancy and become a
> useful organization.
> In addition to some of the important work done by NetMundial in bridging
> the gap between the Internet and Human Rights and opening the door to
> discussions on revising the government defined roles and
> responsibilities of the actors in the Internet ecosystem from 2003, it
> has shown us that it is possible for a multistakeholder organization to
> produce outcomes.  It is now time for the IGF to figure out how to do
> the same.
> Additionally, the NetMundial has sent some tasks the IGF's way.  I look
> forward to work on such issues as Net Neutrality at IGF2014.
> The mission of the IGF has been given a real push by NetMundial, I hope
> we don't waste the opportunity.
> avri
> On 26-Apr-14 16:36, John Curran wrote:
>  > On Apr 25, 2014, at 9:58 PM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com
>  > <mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com>> wrote:
>  >
>  >> I think the opportunity ahead is how to further examine what the
>  >> "statement of Sao Paolo" says and how to continue work, especially at
>  >> IGF,  but not only there.
>  >
>  > Indeed.
>  > /John
>  >
>  > Disclaimer: My views alone.
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > _______________________________________________
>  > discuss mailing list
>  > discuss at 1net.org
>  > http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>  >
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

More information about the discuss mailing list